GCSE options School saying DS HAS to take Spanish - he hates it!

[Jungfraujoch]

So DS Yr 9 choosing options. OPTION being the key word here!

Top 2 sets in Spanish have to take it as an option. Sets below can choose whether they do or dont.

He is in the second set, hates it, doesn’t think he should be in that set anyway as he struggles.

He has chosen Product Design, Business and Geography. Instead of Spanish he’d like to do a Level 2 BTECH in Creative Digital Media but has been told not possible alongside Product Design as too much coursework!

My thinking is he will work much harder at Digital Media than Spanish.

We are waiting for the school to respond further but am interested to hear other people’s thoughts and experiences. Thank you

Ds was being told he had to do French. He hates it. Conversation with the head went along the lines of “if you make him do French and he’s struggling I will advise him to do no revision as I don’t want it to jeopardise his other subjects.”

I also threatened to complain to the governors.

He’s now not doing French

I don't understand why a school wants to jeopardise their GCSE results by making pupils take non core subjects that they are going to fail in. It makes no sense to me.

Perhaps because they want to give pupils a comparable core curriculum to that which students receive in all other countries with a secondary education system?

So the pupil ends up with 8 or 9 GCSEs and 1 fail instead of 9 or 10 GCSEs

There is no reason to fail a MFL. British pupils are not born with diffferent language learning abilities to students in other countries. Perhaps MFLs are less well taught in the UK (not so sure though, they can be pretty poorly taught in many other countries as well from what I gather) but like everything it is a question of effort and attitude. Excluding of course some pupils with severe learning difficulties or behavioural issues.
There seems to be a peculiarly British attitude from some MN parents that à MFL or even a humanity are just not worth their DCs learning even up to the age of 16.

"Perhaps MFLs are less well taught in the UK"

I think that this ^^ is very much the case.

I have A level French but I struggle to speak it fluently. Half the syllabus was studying French literature, and the 3 hour paper could be written in English. So it could have been an English lit exam about books written by French authors. We did "read" the books in French, but also bought the English translations.

For the record I would have preferred DD to take French at GCSE, but it was so poorly taught at her school, and I remember my mum making me take history at O level (which I failed), that I decided that DD was free to choose whatever subjects she wanted. In the event the three options she chose were geography, history and art, all of which she got nothing less than an A for.

It’s utterly ridiculous, and the way it usually has to be taught at GCSE is remotely beneficial to the child long term. I did German at GCSE, immediately forgot it all after the exams and then started from the beginning at university. I understand so much more now that I’m learning it of my own volition.

Am a head of MFL and much as I would love all students to study a language and enjoy it, I really wish schools (and the government) would allow students to make an informed choice - there is no joy at all in teaching students who don't want to learn, just as there is no joy for the students in studying a subject they don't want to!

there is no joy at all in teaching students who don't want to learn
That basically means you don’t want to teach poorly motivated pupils in view of behavioural issues. Science and maths teachers have to cope with the same yet nobody would say that pupils should not be forced to do science or maths as it is not a joy to teach them.

Learning is never a joy all the time. It can be tough. The more advanced it is the tougher it gets. That in itself is a lesson. If MFLs are useless as they are being taught make them useful, either in a way of teaching basic grammar or building blocks for language learning later on so that the British have some understanding of trying to communicate in a different language.
Otherwise MFL teachers will end up with classes of zero.

I can’t remember very much at all of what I learnt at school, it does n’t mean that my education was useless as a whole.

Don't put words in my mouth. That basically means you don’t want to teach poorly motivated pupils in view of behavioural issues - it really doesn't! It means I think students should have a choice. It means students (and wider UK society) see a value in other subjects like English, maths and science that they don't see in MFL. This is a cultural issue and nothing whatsoever to do with who I do or don't want to teach.

But you must see that it is a chicken and egg situation. Languages are poorly taught and therefore parents and pupils have no interest and perpetuate the myth that MFLs are useless. Cultural perhaps for the British but a school can change that culture as can the teachers. Students should n’t have a choice if that puts them at a disadvantage to students from the rest of the developed world. There is no indication that reducing breadth of subjects down early has put the British at an advantage.

Quality of teaching, the assumption that every child learns a language, and high value placed on languages by local employers dioes make a difference, IME.

Local comprehensive teaches 1 language to all from Y7, 2 to all but a small handful of SEN children from Y8 for 2 years, and while a language is not compulsory for GCSE, the presence of 5 true option blocks makes it very likely that the selections made by the vast majority of students will include at least 1 language.

One of the things which seems to me to mitigate against students choosing languages is a very constrained list of options. If a child has only 2 or 3 options, then languages may well lose out. If they have 5, then a language (or 2) is more likely to be included. Neither of my DCs are 'gifted linguists', but both have done 2 languages to GCSE because, with 5 options to play with, that didn't prevent them ALSO doing all the other subjects that they wanted to.

DD will carry on to A-level with 1 language.

At DD’s school languages seem to be well taught. DD has certainly enjoyed learning what she has so far but still struggles with Spanish (which is the language they do in Years 7/8.

But when it comes to GCSE choices she could pick 3 and she’s chosen the 3 subjects she loves the most. The 3 that she’s passionate about and looks forward to those lessons. Spanish was 4th on the list of options she’d consider doing so it got cut. Simply no room left.

Sometimes there’s just no room to fit a MFL in under the new GCSE’s now they are harder if the child wants to do other things. It doesn’t mean we don’t value a MFL or that the teaching isn’t good, it’s just that you make a choice for what’s right for the individual child based on what they want/enjoy/need.

"it’s just that you make a choice for what’s right for the individual child based on what they want/enjoy/need."

And when a school only allows 3 choices, that makes it very hard...

Why just 3, btw? Is it that 3 sciences take up a block, or do they do 2 English, Maths, 2-3 Sciences + just 3 others? So 8-9 maximum? Or is there compulsory RE or something?

3 because compulsory are:

Eng lit
Eng Lang
Maths
Chemistry
Biology
Physics
RE

Plus 3 choices (one of which has to be history or geography) to make 10 total. So true choices only 2.

If you decide to go for combined science instead you’d get one extra choice.

School also strongly suggest that one of the 3 should be a vocational course to lighten and balance the load (although it’s not compulsory). They still encourage the EBacc but don’t force it.

I’m glad they cap it at 10 as I think it’s more than enough.

DD had to do Citizenship. I would have preferred that a MFL was compulsory rather than Citizenship.

Citizenship may contain valuable content but probably the main incentive for making it compulsory is that it allows an easy gain of GCSE points for the school.

Shaggyrug I would like most agree that 10 GCSEs as they are plenty.
I think that GCSEs should be like the IB, a mixture of higher (full content) and standard (two thirds content). to allow more subjects to be taken. English, maths higher content as compulsory then stamdard or higher content for sciences, a humanity and MFL. Then a free choice, possibly into total 7 higher and 4 standard.

PSHE and PE are also compulsory

Core PE is compulsory at DD’s school but not PE GCSE. PSHE has never been on her timetable since she started.

Maybe PSHE is called something else but it is a requirement so they must deliver it somehow.
I meant core PE being compulsory as opposed to GCSE PE.

According to DD they do ‘SMSE’ in form so think that’s PSHE by another name perhaps?

Yes - I think it will be probably SMSC though - social moral spiritual and cultural education. That was the term used as another measure of effective lessons about 10 years ago. But I can see why they’ve named it that in form time.

My DDs did the 7 subjects above and with theee additional choices the school wanted to see a humanity, an art and a MFL. They expected the children to have a broad education at GCSE. They were better educated as a result and didn’t have hissy fits and give up!

Some subjects are necessary to allow for a decent choice of A levels. The brightest children are capable of doing any subject so a broad spectrum is best and there is no need to specialise at 13/14 years old. No one needs niche subjects at GCSE.

@BubblesBuddy Interested to know what you define as a "niche" subject?

It’s not a case of “having hissy fits and giving up”. Some children genuinely hate a subject so much that if it is ‘optional’ it would be best not to spend 2-3 years studying it in misery and having it demotivate them and making them hate school.

Even the school told DD to choose 1). what subjects she loves & enjoys. Then 2). what she’s good at... clearly understanding that choosing something you hate & struggle with, just to fit in a box of ‘broad’ education, is pointless and won’t benefit the student in the long run.

One size education does not fit all children.